delete_bookmark

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target, but fails to disclose any side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the bookmark does not exist). This is a significant gap for a delete operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. Every word earns its place, and it directly conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It clarifies that the bookmark is 'report-level' but fails to explain the required session parameter, the permanence of deletion, or any error handling expectations. Given the simplicity of the operation, the description could still be considered adequate, but the lack of behavioral context lowers the score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning to the 'name' parameter by clarifying it can be either the bookmark name or displayName, which goes beyond the schema's terse string description. However, it does not explain 'reportSessionId' at all, and schema coverage is only 50%. The description partially compensates but leaves one parameter semantically undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action (Delete), the resource (report-level bookmark), and the key selection criteria (by name or displayName). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_bookmark, update_bookmark, and list_bookmarks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for deleting report-level bookmarks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the obvious. No guidance is provided on when not to use it or how it relates to other bookmark-manipulation tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.